NRS
16.030 Drawing and examination of jurors; administration of oath or
affirmation.
1. Except when the jurors are drawn by a
jury commissioner, in preparing for the selection of the jury, the clerk, under
the direction of the judge, shall place in a box ballots containing the names
of the persons summoned who have appeared and have not been excused. The clerk
shall mix the ballots and draw from the box the number of names needed to
complete the jury in accordance with the procedure provided either in subsection
3 or subsection 4, as the judge directs.
2. Whenever the jurors are drawn by the
jury commissioner, the judge may also direct the jury commissioner to draw, in
advance, the names of additional jurors in the order they would be used to
replace discharged or excused jurors pursuant to subsections 3 and 4.
3. The judge may require that eight names
be drawn, and the persons whose names are called must be examined as to their
qualifications to serve as jurors. If any persons are excused or discharged, or
if the ballots are exhausted before the jury is selected, additional names
shall be drawn from the jury box and those persons summoned and examined as
provided by law until the jury is selected.
4. The judge may require that the clerk
draw a number of names to form a panel of prospective jurors equal to the sum
of the number of regular jurors and alternate jurors to be selected and the
number of peremptory challenges to be exercised. The persons whose names are
called must be examined as to their qualifications to serve as jurors. If any
persons on the panel are excused for cause, they must be replaced by additional
persons who must also be examined as to their qualifications. The jury must
consist of eight persons, unless the parties consent to a lesser number. The
parties may consent to any number not less than four. This consent must be
entered by the clerk in the minutes of the trial. When a sufficient number of
prospective jurors has been qualified to complete the panel, each side shall
exercise its peremptory challenges out of the hearing of the panel by
alternately striking names from the list of persons on the panel. After the
peremptory challenges have been exercised, the persons remaining on the panel
who are needed to complete the jury shall, in the order in which their names
were drawn, be regular jurors or alternate jurors.
5. Before persons whose names have been
drawn are examined as to their qualifications to serve as jurors, the judge or
the judge’s clerk shall administer an oath or affirmation to them in
substantially the following form:
Do you, and each of you,
(solemnly swear, or affirm under the pains and penalties of perjury) that you
will well and truly answer all questions put to you touching upon your
qualifications to serve as jurors in the case now pending before this court (so
help you God)?
6. The judge shall conduct the initial
examination of prospective jurors and the parties or their attorneys are
entitled to conduct supplemental examinations which must not be unreasonably
restricted.
[1911 CPA § 262; RL § 5204; NCL § 8760]—(NRS A 1971,
344; 1977,
417; 1979,
917; 1981,
329, 556)
Notes of Decisions
Lyft, Inc. v. Dist. Ct. (davis), 2021 NV 86 (Nev. 2021).
· cites it 9× “In Whitlock, we examined whether NRS 16.030(6), which sets forth how voir dire is conducted, violated the separation of powers doctrine because it conflicted with the then-existing version of NRCP 47(a).”
Whitlock v. Salmon, 752 P.2d 210 (Nev. 1988).
· cites it 5× “NRS 16.030(6) provides: The judge shall conduct the initial examination of prospective jurors and the parties or their attorneys are entitled to conduct supplemental examinations which must not be unreasonably restricted (emphasis added).”
Thomas v. Hardwick, 231 P.3d 1111 (Nev. 2010).
· cites it 2× “Adhering to Riggins , we presume that the venire was asked the question the district court suggested ("Do you have any strong feelings one way or the other about people who sue their doctor or their hospital and the claim that the doctor and the hospital caused them injury?"),…”
Canterino v. the Mirage Casino-Hotel, 16 P.3d 415 (Nev. 2001).
· cites it 2× “While the Nevada Constitution does not address the necessary number of parties to arrive at a valid verdict, NRS 16.030(4) provides that "[t]he jury must consist of eight persons, unless the parties consent to a lesser number.”
Morgan v. State, 416 P.3d 212 (Nev. 2018).
“In examining prospective jurors, NRS 16.030(4) is illustrative: 13 The persons whose names are called must be examined as to their qualifications to serve as jurors.”
Melancon v. McKeithen, 345 F. Supp. 1025 (E.D. La. 1972).
“§ 26-183 (1943) ; Nev.Rev.Stat. § 16.030 (1957) ; N.J.Rules 4:49-l; N.”
Barral (dustin) Vs. State, 2015 NV 52 (Nev. 2015).
· cites it 12× “: In this opinion, we address whether a district court commits structural error when it fails to administer an oath to the jury panel, pursuant to NRS 16.030(5), prior to commencing voir dire.”
Clark (Walter) Vs. State, 489 P.3d 914 (Nev. 2021).
· cites it 5× “First, Clark argues that the district court erred by failing to administer the oath NRS 16.030(5) requires before asking jurors SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) I947A "40p• 21 351-1 preliminary questions.”
Uceda (Alexander) Vs. State (Nev. 2021).
· cites it 4× “First, Uceda argues that counsel should have objected to the trial court's failure to administer the jury oath required by NRS 16.030(5), which constitutes structural error pursuant to Barral v.”
Barral (dustin) Vs. State, 2015 NV 52 (Nev. 2015).
· cites it 6× “: In this opinion, we address whether a district court commits structural error when it fails to administer an oath to the jury panel, pursuant to NRS 16.030(5), prior to commencing voir dire.”
Cazares, III (Manuel) v. State (Nev. 2019).
· cites it 3× “Failure to administer the oath under NRS 16.030 prior to jury questioning Cazares argues that the district court erred in failing to administer an oath to the jury venire before examining their qualifications as jurors, and that failure constitutes structural error requiring…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 16.030(4) — 3 cases
Canterino v. the Mirage Casino-Hotel, 16 P.3d 415 (Nev. 2001).
“While the Nevada Constitution does not address the necessary number of parties to arrive at a valid verdict, NRS 16.030(4) provides that "[t]he jury must consist of eight persons, unless the parties consent to a lesser number.”
Morgan v. State, 416 P.3d 212 (Nev. 2018).
“In examining prospective jurors, NRS 16.030(4) is illustrative: 13 The persons whose names are called must be examined as to their qualifications to serve as jurors.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 16.030(5) — 14 cases
Barral (dustin) Vs. State, 2015 NV 52 (Nev. 2015).
“: In this opinion, we address whether a district court commits structural error when it fails to administer an oath to the jury panel, pursuant to NRS 16.030(5), prior to commencing voir dire.”
Clark (Walter) Vs. State, 489 P.3d 914 (Nev. 2021).
“First, Clark argues that the district court erred by failing to administer the oath NRS 16.030(5) requires before asking jurors SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) I947A "40p• 21 351-1 preliminary questions.”
Uceda (Alexander) Vs. State (Nev. 2021).
“First, Uceda argues that counsel should have objected to the trial court's failure to administer the jury oath required by NRS 16.030(5), which constitutes structural error pursuant to Barral v.”
Barral (dustin) Vs. State, 2015 NV 52 (Nev. 2015).
“: In this opinion, we address whether a district court commits structural error when it fails to administer an oath to the jury panel, pursuant to NRS 16.030(5), prior to commencing voir dire.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 16.030(6) — 7 cases
Lyft, Inc. v. Dist. Ct. (davis), 2021 NV 86 (Nev. 2021).
“In Whitlock, we examined whether NRS 16.030(6), which sets forth how voir dire is conducted, violated the separation of powers doctrine because it conflicted with the then-existing version of NRCP 47(a).”
Whitlock v. Salmon, 752 P.2d 210 (Nev. 1988).
“NRS 16.030(6) provides: The judge shall conduct the initial examination of prospective jurors and the parties or their attorneys are entitled to conduct supplemental examinations which must not be unreasonably restricted (emphasis added).”
Thomas v. Hardwick, 231 P.3d 1111 (Nev. 2010).
“Adhering to Riggins , we presume that the venire was asked the question the district court suggested ("Do you have any strong feelings one way or the other about people who sue their doctor or their hospital and the claim that the doctor and the hospital caused them injury?"),…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.